Most "accidents" ARE preventable... but while we decry the actions of one individual that harms another with firearms, we as a society are blind to the massacre by motorists.

That is because when one harms someone else with a firearm, there was usually criminal intent. When one harms another with a vehicle, even if it were preventable, there generally was nothing but poor decision making. HUGE difference, both in the eyes of the law and in how society thinks they should be punished.

Yes, most auto accidents were avoidable. Play semantic games all you want as to what you actually call them, there is no argument that is going to convince me that they should be punished anywhere near the severity reserved for someone who commits willful murder. You could institute the death penalty for auto accidents resulting in death, you aren't going to reduce the numbers because killing someone and the consequences is far from the front of my mind when making driving decisions.

If a cyclist blows a red light, and a car wrecks trying to avoid them, would you suggest that cyclist be imprisoned for life (or at least decades) because they killed someone the same as a murder?

If you want to talk long sentences of community service, talk of permanent (and without numerous workarounds) license revocation, I'm cool with that, but thinking someone like me sitting in prison for a year for a felony mistake that killed someone as just a small slap on a wrist is silly. To any normal person, even such a sentence like that is fairly life ruining.

That is because when one harms someone else with a firearm, there was usually criminal intent. When one harms another with a vehicle, even if it were preventable, there generally was nothing but poor decision making. HUGE difference, both in the eyes of the law and in how society thinks they should be punished.

Yes, most auto accidents were avoidable. Play semantic games all you want as to what you actually call them, there is no argument that is going to convince me that they should be punished anywhere near the severity reserved for someone who commits willful murder. You could institute the death penalty for auto accidents resulting in death, you aren't going to reduce the numbers because killing someone and the consequences is far from the front of my mind when making driving decisions.

If a cyclist blows a red light, and a car wrecks trying to avoid them, would you suggest that cyclist be imprisoned for life (or at least decades) because they killed someone the same as a murder?

Gee, perhaps the consequences of driving decisions SHOULD be closer to the front of your mind...

Gee, perhaps the consequences of driving decisions SHOULD be closer to the front of your mind...

I make decisions on a whether I perceive the action to be safe or not. I don't do an in-depth analysis of all the ways a decision could go wrong before making it while driving.

Killing someone is an unrealistic thing to expect to happen from glancing down quickly to change the radio station, even if there is that slightest chance that everything could align perfectly and wind up with that result. Almost no one in a normal frame of mind is ever going to have that come up as a potential result of taking that action when the music stops and the advertisements comes on.

If you are sitting here telling me you can project every last consequence of every decision you make at a moment's notice, along with all the legal penalties that come along with those consequence, then congrats, you are far more advanced in logical reasoning skills than myself.

That is because when one harms someone else with a firearm, there was usually criminal intent. When one harms another with a vehicle, even if it were preventable, there generally was nothing but poor decision making. HUGE difference, both in the eyes of the law and in how society thinks they should be punished.

Yes, most auto accidents were avoidable. Play semantic games all you want as to what you actually call them, there is no argument that is going to convince me that they should be punished anywhere near the severity reserved for someone who commits willful murder. You could institute the death penalty for auto accidents resulting in death, you aren't going to reduce the numbers because killing someone and the consequences is far from the front of my mind when making driving decisions.

If a cyclist blows a red light, and a car wrecks trying to avoid them, would you suggest that cyclist be imprisoned for life (or at least decades) because they killed someone the same as a murder?

If you want to talk long sentences of community service, talk of permanent (and without numerous workarounds) license revocation, I'm cool with that, but thinking someone like me sitting in prison for a year for a felony mistake that killed someone as just a small slap on a wrist is silly. To any normal person, even such a sentence like that is fairly life ruining.

It's NOT me playing the semantic games... it is the experts that feel the driving public has played a semantic game for far too long... "as 'accidents' are nobodies fault..."

The traffic experts out there want motorists to realize that they have responsibilities when they get behind the wheel.

And your cavalier attitude is a prime example of this problem. Most crashes are preventable, they are NOT accidents.

I make decisions on a whether I perceive the action to be safe or not. I don't do an in-depth analysis of all the ways a decision could go wrong before making it while driving.

Killing someone is an unrealistic thing to expect to happen from glancing down quickly to change the radio station, even if there is that slightest chance that everything could align perfectly and wind up with that result. Almost no one in a normal frame of mind is ever going to have that come up as a potential result of taking that action when the music stops and the advertisements comes on.

If you are sitting here telling me you can project every last consequence of every decision you make at a moment's notice, along with all the legal penalties that come along with those consequence, then congrats, you are far more advanced in logical reasoning skills than myself.

Again... you are pointing at me and suggesting that I am making this declaration... I am just the messenger... far more learned folks than I are making this determination. It's up to you to get with the program.

I agree, but am far more optimistic that we'll get autonomous cars which display the necessary degree of responsibility before we convince regular drivers to do so.

I am too...

But the reality is that while those cars may be available in a year or two... the general uptake is gonna be slow, and in the mean time, there's lots of "not paying attention" folks out there just casually rolling along in their four wheeled couches... thinking "hey, anything happens, it's 'just an accident...' now where's that last curly fry..."

It's NOT me playing the semantic games... it is the experts that feel the driving public has played a semantic game for far too long... "as 'accidents' are nobodies fault..."

The traffic experts out there want motorists to realize that they have responsibilities when they get behind the wheel.

And your cavalier attitude is a prime example of this problem. Most crashes are preventable, they are NOT accidents.

OK, call them crashes. I don't really care what you call them, the fact is they are generally caused when someone makes the wrong instantaneous decision. No amount of harsh punishment is going to change the outcome of those instantaneous incorrect decisions. WE can and should go hard on things like drunk driving or street racing, because it is the consequence of willful and prolonged bad decision making. There is zero societal benefit to imprisoning someone for decades because they looked down to change the radio station at the same time the car in front of them hit the brakes, and they killed a kid sitting in the back seat, or missed someone in their blind spot when they tried to change lanes. Was it a preventable accident? Absolutely. Is anyone going to take heed of a draconian sentence next time they make that split second decision? Incredibly doubtful.

Courts have long looked at actions and whether they are criminal in intent, or at the very least so reckless and in disregard for the safety of others around one that one should have known there was a high likelihood of injury or death in deciding to prosecute such cases. Even when considering murder, we draw the line between premeditated actions and poor decisions in the heat of the moment. Yes, nearly every auto accident/crash/whatever you want to call it was avoidable. No, most never reach the bar that society deems necessary for treating as harshly as a violent crime, and that is a good thing, unless you think adding another 30,000 or so long term felony offenders to the prison system every year is a good idea.

Your own "cavalier attitude" seems to think that people are so callous that they can kill people and just get away with it, and move on as if nothing has happened. I can guarantee you almost none (as this is A&S, I'm sure ONE anecdotal example can be dragged up, so I'll hedge my words) of those people are sitting around at the next cocktail party bragging to their friends that they got away with killing someone. It simply is not the case.

OK, call them crashes. I don't really care what you call them, the fact is they are generally caused when someone makes the wrong instantaneous decision. No amount of harsh punishment is going to change the outcome of those instantaneous incorrect decisions. WE can and should go hard on things like drunk driving or street racing, because it is the consequence of willful and prolonged bad decision making. There is zero societal benefit to imprisoning someone for decades because they looked down to change the radio station at the same time the car in front of them hit the brakes, and they killed a kid sitting in the back seat, or missed someone in their blind spot when they tried to change lanes. Was it a preventable accident? Absolutely. Is anyone going to take heed of a draconian sentence next time they make that split second decision? Incredibly doubtful.

Courts have long looked at actions and whether they are criminal in intent, or at the very least so reckless and in disregard for the safety of others around one that one should have known there was a high likelihood of injury or death in deciding to prosecute such cases. Even when considering murder, we draw the line between premeditated actions and poor decisions in the heat of the moment. Yes, nearly every auto accident/crash/whatever you want to call it was avoidable. No, most never reach the bar that society deems necessary for treating as harshly as a violent crime, and that is a good thing, unless you think adding another 30,000 or so long term felony offenders to the prison system every year is a good idea.

Your own "cavalier attitude" seems to think that people are so callous that they can kill people and just get away with it, and move on as if nothing has happened. I can guarantee you almost none (as this is A&S, I'm sure ONE anecdotal example can be dragged up, so I'll hedge my words) of those people are sitting around at the next cocktail party bragging to their friends that they got away with killing someone. It simply is not the case.

Of course not... "it was just an accident..." "I didn't mean to kill him/her..."